The trial verdict in a dispute case number 112/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Dispute Election Results (PHPU) Mentawai Islands regency in 2011 on Friday night (10/11). In the injunction decision, the Court stated in the demurrer, rejecting Exception Respondent and the Related Parties. Whereas in stating the purpose thereof to entirely reject the petition.

This was conveyed by the chairperson, Moh. Mahfud MD in accompanied by other constitutional judges, when reading the verdict. Petition, filed by Anthony and Melki candidates as Regent and Vice Regent of Regency. Mentawai Islands.

In consideration, the Petitioner argues that the Respondent as the Regional District Electoral Commission. Mentawai Islands have committed violations of the inflation of the Permanent Voter List (DPT). Against these arguments, according to the Court, the Petitioners’ argument is not proved by evidence sufficient to convince the Court. Meanwhile, in the opinion of the Court further stated, "Respondent in the preparation of DPT has been done in accordance with applicable regulations," explained the Court.

In addition, related to the allegations concerning Petitioner no distribution of voter cards and letters of invitation to the voting public chose in some districts that are the basis Applicant. Court judge, the Petitioners’ argument is not supported by sufficient evidence convincing.

By law, the Court continued, even though voters did not get invited to choose, according to the Court Number 102/PUU-VII/2009 Decision, dated July 6, 2009, "still can choose to show their credentials ie ID card, family card, or a valid passport, "explained the Court.

That, reinforced by a written statement Panwaslu District. Mentawai Islands, which explains that the Election Supervisory Committee never received a report from the public regarding terdistribusinya no voter card and a letter of invitation to the public choose. Thus according to the Court Petitioners’ argument is unproven and unfounded law, the Court explained.

Furthermore, with regard to Petitioner’s argument that the Respondent has committed an offense by letting minors, such as elementary school students and junior high school students. Said the Court, the Petitioners’ argument, is not proven by evidence sufficient to convince the Court. "Even if there are violations, as argued by the Petitioner, quod non, the offense is not structured, systematic, and the massive influence the vote of each pair of candidates," explained the Court.

Meanwhile, allegations of the Petitioner against the Related Party and Judas Sabaggalet Rijel Samaloisa, have been intimidating to the public transmigration SP 1, SP 2 and SP 3 (another name from the name of the village), district. North Sipora. According to the Court, the Petitioners argue is not supported by sufficient evidence. Meanwhile, Panwaslu based on his written statement said that the Election Supervisory Committee has received reports as argued by the Petitioner, and to report, the Election Supervisory Committee has invited the complainant to be clarified, but the complainant did not reply to the invitation. Thus, according to the Court Petitioners’ argument is unproven and unreasonable laws.

From the overall set of facts in the trial, the Court violations argued by the Petitioner did not prove to be structured, systematic, and massive, and did not significantly affect the results of which determine the desirability Election candidates. "So that the Petitioner’s petition is legally proven," said the Court. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)